[Type here] D3.6 Efficient, low-risk ramp- up of liquid biomass conver- sion technologies - from short time to long term Authors: Paraskevi Karka, Ivar Petersson, Stavros Papadokonstantakis, Filip Johnsson Organisation: Chalmers University of Technology City, Country: Gothenburg, Sweden Email: [email protected]Website: www.chalmers.se
98
Embed
D3.6 Efficient, low-risk ramp- up of liquid biomass conver ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
[Type here]
D3.6 Efficient, low-risk ramp-
up of liquid biomass conver-
sion technologies - from short
time to long term
Authors: Paraskevi Karka, Ivar Petersson, Stavros Papadokonstantakis, Filip Johnsson
3. Technology learning 3.1 The Learning curve framework
The learning curve framework was analysed in detail in D3.5 where the single factor approach was
described to provide the way that production costs are reduced by a constant fraction for doubling of
cumulative production. The multicomponent analysis was also described as an expansion of the first
approach where cost reduction is not applied at the process level but independently at each process
component. Assuming that the cost of each component decreases over time according to a power law
relation as a result of learning, then the technology learning relationship may be expressed as follows
(where the index i represents a given cost component):
𝐶(𝑄𝑡) = ∑ 𝐶(𝑄0𝑖) · [𝑄𝑡
𝑄0]−𝑏(𝑖) = 𝐶01[
𝑄𝑡1
𝑄01]−𝑏(1) + 𝐶02[
𝑄𝑡2
𝑄02]−𝑏(2) + ⋯ . +𝐶0𝑛[
𝑄𝑡𝑛
𝑄0𝑛]−𝑏(𝑛) (1)
where b(i) is positive learning parameter for component i,
C (Qt) is the unit cost of production at cumulative production Qt ,
Q0 is the cumulative production at an arbitrary starting point,
C0i is the cost and Q0i is the cumulative production of component i at an arbitrary starting point.
12
3.2 Cost reduction methodology To apply the multicomponent learning approach, each pathway is divided into a sequence of unit pro-
cesses which produce the desired product (Fig 1, lower box). Each process is characterized by a partic-
ular maturity level expressed by an average learning rate parameter (LR), and the initial cumulative
installed capacity (CIC) at a starting year (2018 is assumed in this case). Each process component has its
own cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR); however, the annual growth rate of the whole pathway is
at the end determined by the biomass processes related limiting step. For instance, in direct gasification
producing methanol, air separation and methanol production from syngas are independent technolo-
gies with their own learning and growth rate parameters as they are used in many industrial applica-
tions, on the basis of which its production costs will decrease independently from the fact that they will
be used or not in gasification plants. However, when CAGR will be used to reach specific capacity targets
for the specific fuel under investigation, the CAGR of the pathway depends on the estimated growth
rate of the biomass technology limiting step (i.e., gasification in this case). Thus, process components
using conventional technologies with wider applications than those of biomass utilisation obtain LR and
CAGR parameters from existing market trends for the same or equivalent technologies and products
(upper box in Figure 1).
Figure 1 Representation of biobased pathway for the production of liquid biofuels.
Thus, the application of the learning curve theory to assess cost reduction potential through learning
by doing is described in Figure 2 and it is composed of 3 steps.
13
Figure 2 Steps of the cost reduction methodology
Step 1: the technology pathway is divided into process steps resulting in a specific intermediate product
(e.g., Syngas, pyrolysis oil, etc.) and each process step is divided into components representing elemen-
tary technological steps (e.g., air separation unit used in the direct gasification process step).
Step 2: For each time point (t), defined as one year starting from 2020, the specific investment cost
𝐶(𝑄01) [𝑄𝑡
𝑄0]−𝑏(𝑖)of each process component (C(Qt,i) is calculated from the analysis of cost reduction
based on the learning curve theory (see also D3.5). C(Qt,i) depends on the learning rate, LR, where b is
obtained from the equation 𝐿𝑅 = 1 − 2−𝑏 and CAGR parameters per process component (i.e., deter-
mining the ratio of CICi(t)/CICi(t0)).
Regarding the selection of LR value for each technological component belonging to a particular process
step:
LR values for each process step is derived by literature (e.g., Detz et al., (2019)). In case of missing
values, mature technologies (e.g., conventional steps) are assigned a low LR value of 0.05 and
less mature steps a higher value of 0.15.
If a process step contains a combination of mature and less mature components, then a differ-
entiation of LR values for components within the same process step is possible. For instance, the
biomass to syngas process step is considered as a less mature step mainly because of the gasifi-
cation technology. Thus, a value of 15% is assigned to the gasifier component of this step, while
other components such as feedstock handling obtain an LR value of 5%.
LR values have inherent uncertainties and ranges are suggested that facilitate sensitivity analysis
scenarios for further analysis of the results presented herein.
14
Cumulative installed capacities (CIC) are defined by considering information for operation by priority as
demo or pilot plants in Europe or in global scale or values mentioned in simulation reports.
Cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR) values are generally lacking due to very limited and relatively
very recent commercial plants in operation. Thus, the following criteria are employed to select CAGR
values:
If a process step is similar to conventional production (e.g synthesis gas to methanol) values of
CAGR for the conventional production is assigned to this process step and all of its components.
If a value of CAGR is not found for a process step (e.g., biomass-based step), the growth rate in
market demand of the corresponding fuel product is considered as a lower limit value in the
scenarios described below.
The CAGR of the intermediate product of a process step can be lower, equal or higher of the
respective value of the final product of the pathway (fuel). Higher CAGR values for intermediate
products mean that the production volume of the intermediate product is used to cover other
uses than this of the final product N. Lower CAGR values mean that other conventional processes
exist which cover the demand of final product N. Equal means that the increase of demand in
final product N is covered only by the particular technological pathway.
Step 3: By adding the values of all process components, the total specific investment cost of the process
step is calculated and consecutively of the whole technological pathway at the time point t (CAPEX(t))
and therefore also at CICi(t). Thus, the specific investment cost of a technology can be expressed as a
function of the cumulative installed capacity of any process step. For the next calculations step, it is
more convenient to express the specific investment cost of a technology as a function of the CIC of the
biomass-based process step (CAPEX(CICi(t)) which also determines the cumulative installed capacity of
the technology under investigation.
The growth rate of advanced biofuels is subject to many uncertainties depending on current conditions
for growth rates of fossil-based demand and their future role in the transportation mix. The first sce-
nario, herein mentioned as baseline scenario, assumes CAGR values equal to the growth rate of the
corresponding market of the fuel, and thus it is a conservative scenario not leading to “greening” of the
transportation mix.
Scenario A assumes marginally higher CAGR values than the growth rate of the corresponding market
of the fuel. Thus, it does not lead to a significant share of the market in short- to mid-term and the
corresponding “greening” achieved is not enough to satisfy environmental targets for the time horizon
considered in the ADVANCEFUEL project (i.e., 2030-2050). Although with this approach an increase of
installed capacity by one order of magnitude may still be achieved in the considered time horizon, not
being able to cover a significant share of the market may mean that a technology does not fully satisfy
the criterion of competitive manufacturing.
15
Scenario B assumes an annual growth of the installed capacity that is considerably bigger than the
growth rate of the corresponding market of the fuel to an extent that it can satisfy targeted shares of
the market in the considered time horizon. Scenario B estimates the CAGR of the biobased fuel in order
to achieve 20% of the production of the respective fossil-based fuel in the end of the time horizon of
the ADVANCEFUEL project. The projected amount of fossil-based fuel is calculated based on current
market trends. This means that it represents the amount of this fossil-based fuel in a future transporta-
tion mix based on the current marginal market conditions (i.e., without considering potential reduction
in energy used for transportation in the future and also not significant replacement of fossil-based
fuels). Thus 20% production of advanced biofuel of this projected fossil-based quantity can be in agree-
ment with the scenarios of European Commission 2018 that refer to 13%-24% contribution of liquid
biofuels in the energy consumption for transportation in 2050 (EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2018)
Scenario C is based on CAGR that would be necessary to achieve advanced biofuel targets provided by
WP6. This calculation is obviously performed only for those fuels that participate in the 2030 or 2050
transportation mix according to the Transport-BIO optimisation scenario of the integrated model of
WP6. Since two target values for CIC are considered in Scenario C (i.e., one for 2030 and one for 2050),
the CAGR values are adjusted accordingly after 2030. The Transport-BIO scenario of WP6 refers to a
large deployment of advanced biofuels; thus, in some cases large installed capacities are assumed al-
ready by 2030. The other optimisation scenario in WP6 (Road-ZERO) refers to limited deployment of
advanced biofuels, leading to significantly smaller installed capacities and thus limited scope for CAPEX
reduction, for instance similar to the results of Scenario A, as far as specific CAPEX (Eur/kW-product) is
concerned.
4. Application of learning curve
theory to ADVANCEFUEL path-
ways
This section presents the application of the learning curve methodology for estimation of the scope for
CAPEX reduction of the ADVANCEFUEL pathways. For each pathway, the values of the parameters of
the learning curve methodology are first presented, organised per process step. Detailed tables with
the decomposition of each process step into components and their corresponding learning methodol-
ogy parameters are available in an MS Excel database in the ADVANCEFUEL website. Ranges of all
16
model parameters are included in this database that facilitate sensitivity analysis scenarios and further
testing of the robustness of the learning-curve methodology results.
4.1 Thermochemical pathways
Liquified biomethane
In Table 8, the gasification capacity data are based on the GoBiGas demonstration plant and the corre-
sponding scale-up study by Thunman et al. (2018). Liquified biomethanes production considers an ad-
ditional unit based on the study by Capra et al. (2019). A CIC of 200 MW is considered for the bio-
methane production step, while for the liquefaction process step the nominal capacity of LNG in the
year 2018 is used. Learning rate values are selected as the minimum values found in literature for the
mature technological components. For instance, the technologies in the gasification step are all con-
sidered mature and attain a learning rate of 0.05, except from the gasifier and the syngas cleaning
system that require adjustments and improvements for consistent continuous operation of the plant
(Thunman et al., 2018). Market demand values were found for methane (2026) and LNG (2025), and
these were used for setting reference CAGR values according to the approach described above.
According to Table 9, baseline scenario and Scenario A correspond to a very small contribution of liq-
uified biomethane (percentages close to zero) with a very small number of plants 3 and 6, respectively,
in the considered timeline (2020-2050). On the other hand, Scenario B can be realised with CAGR=26.7%
leading to CIC of approximately 390 GW, a little less than 2000 plants in 2050 and a corresponding
CAPEX reduction of 45%. Scenario C resembles Scenario B until 2030, after which the growth rate of
this technology is significantly reduced. This leads to significantly less plants (i.e., approximately 50) and
a corresponding CAPEX reduction of 28%.
Table 8. Parameters of the learning curve model for liquified biogas.
Technology Value Unit Range Region Reference
Learning rate (LR)
Gasification Step 0.05
0.02
The minimum value of LR, In accordance with D3.5
Liquefaction Step 0.05
0.02
The minimum value of LR, In accordance with D3.5
Gasifier (in Gasifica-tion Step)
0.15
0.05
Value greater than 10% that is the average ac-cording to Detz et al. (2018), In accordance with D3.5
Cumulative in-stalled capacity (CIC)
Gasification Step 200 MW
Sweden Based on study for scale up of the GoBiGas plant
17
Global nominal liq-uefaction capacity
570,205 MW
370 MTPA
Global IGU World Gas LNG Report – 2018 Edition, as of March 2018, global nominal liquefaction capacity was 369.4 MTPA, an increase of 32.2 MTPA from the end of 2016. Value was con-verted to MW using LHV=48.6MJ/kg. (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html)
Cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR)
Gasification Step 0.06
0.02 Global https://www.marketwatch.com/press-re-lease/at-61-cagr-methane-market-size-will-reach-15127-billion-usd-by-2026-industry-share-growth-product-scope-and-top-ven-dors-research-2019-08-23
Liquefaction Step 0.05
0.02 Global https://www.techscire-search.com/news/1951-global-lng-market-to-grow-at-cagr-5-until-2025.html
Table 9. Scope of liquified biogas CAPEX reduction.
Data sources for methanol are obtained from two different studies, Pacific Northwest National Labora-
tory (PNNL) (Zhu, et al., 2011), and VTT (Hannula, et al., 2013). The learning rate parameters were as-
signed as discussed in the liquefied biomethane case for the gasification step, while the methanol syn-
18
thesis step was considered as a mature technology. It should be noted that in Table 10, methanol ca-
pacity refers to the current installed capacity of methanol regardless of its use as a fuel or chemical. This
may underestimate the required growth rates in scenarios B and C and thus also the scope for CAPEX
reduction in Table 11.
Baseline scenario, Scenario A and Scenario B show that with the selected CAGR values the cumulative
installed capacity in 2050 is 2.9 GW, 6.9 GW and 53 GW, respectively. This corresponds to a scope for
CAPEX reduction of 20% to 30% for the baseline scenario, 25% to 37% for Scenario A, and 33% to 48%
for Scenario C. In all scenarios the technology of indirect gasification shows the biggest potential for
CAPEX reduction. Scenario C is not presented in this case since methanol was not part of the optimal
mix for transportation fuels in the scenarios considered from WP6.
Table 10. Parameters of the learning curve model for methanol.
Technology Value
Range Region Reference
Learning rate (LR)
Gasification step
0.05
0.05 The minimum value of LR, in accordance with D3.5
Methanol synthesis
0.05
0.02 Detz et al. (2018)
Gasifier (in Gasification Step)
0.15
0.05 Value greater than 10% that is the aver-age according to Detz et al. (2018), In accordance with D3.5
Cumulative installed ca-pacity (CIC)
Gasification step
200 MW
Sweden Based on study for scale up of the GoBi-Gas plant
Methanol synthesis
57,040 MW
Global Assuming 90 million tonnes (M. Al-varado, IHS Chem. Week, 2016, 10–11.) Using LHV 19.9 MJ/kg
Cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR)
Gasification step
0.11
0.03 Global Assuming CAGR of syngas totally pro-duced regardeless fossil or bio-based https://www.globenewswire.com/news-re-lease/2019/03/25/1760424/0/en/Global-Syngas-Market-Growth-Trends-and-Forecast-to-2024-Market-is-Expected-to-Grow-at-a-CAGR-of-11-02.html
0.03 Global https://www.globenewswire.com/news-re-lease/2019/03/25/1760424/0/en/Global-Syngas-Market-Growth-Trends-and-Forecast-to-2024-Market-is-Expected-to-Grow-at-a-CAGR-of-11-02.html
Methanol synthesis 0.07
0.02 Global Detz et al. (2018)
DME synthesis 0.07
0.02
Similar to methanol
Table 13 Scope of DME CAPEX reduction.
Scenarios 2018 2020 2030 2050
Baseline Scenario (CAGR=8.8%)
CIC (MW) (number of plants)
200 (1) 237 (1) 549 (3) 2955 (15)
VTT (Hannula, et al., 2013)
Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW)
2.30 2.26 2.07 1.75
Indirect gasification (Zhu, et al., 2011)
Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW)
1.71 1.67 1.46 1.14
Direct gasification (Zhu, et al., 2011)
Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW)
1.09 1.07 0.95 0.76
Direct gasification (Zhu, et al., 2011)
Scenario A (CAGR=11.7%)
CIC (MW) (number of plants) 200 (1) 250(1) 756 (4)
The FT process coproduces diesel with naphtha, jet fuel, and gasoline. In this case the evolution of diesel
market is considered as the driving product for that market which is the product with the higher per-
centage of production among the other co-products. The respective capacity for FT process is obtained
from the study of Detz et al., (2018). Market demand values were found for syngas (2024) and FT liquids,
and these were used for setting CAGR values in Scenarios A and B, following the approach described
above (Table 14).
In Table 15, baseline scenario, Scenario A and Scenario B show that with the selected CAGR values the
cumulative installed capacity in 2050 is 3.0 GW, 6.9 GW and 209 GW, respectively. Their corresponding
scope for CAPEX reduction is 25%, 30% and 40%, respectively. On the other hand, Scenario C results in
marginal growth resulting only in 0.6 GW in 2050 and a respective CAPEX reduction of 15%-20%.
Table 14. Parameters of the learning curve model for FT liquids.
Technology Value
Range Region Reference
Learning rate (LR)
Gasification step 0.05
0.05 The minimum value of LR, in accordance with D3.5
FT synthesis plant 0.05
0.02 Detz et al. (2018)
Gasifier (in Gasifi-cation Step)
0.15 0.05 Value greater that 10% that is the aver-age according to Detz et al. (2018), In ac-cordance with D3.5
22
Cumulative in-stalled capacity (CIC)
Gasification step 200 MW
Sweden Based on study for scale up of the GoBi-Gas plant
FT synthesis plant 40,000 MW
Global Detz et al. (2018)
Cumulative an-nual growth rate (CAGR)
Gasification step 0.11
0.03 Global https://www.globenewswire.com/news-re-lease/2019/03/25/1760424/0/en/Global-Syngas-Market-Growth-Trends-and-Forecast-to-2024-Market-is-Expected-to-Grow-at-a-CAGR-of-11-02.html
FT synthesis plant 0.13
0.05 Global Detz et al. (2018), refers to FT liquids
Table 15. Scope for FT liquids CAPEX reduction.
Scenarios 2018 2020 2030 2050
Baseline Scenario (CAGR=8.8%)
CIC (MW) (num-ber of plants)
200 (1)
237 (1)
549 (3)
2955 (15)
Indirect gasification, Zhu et al., 2011)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.71 1.49 1.51 1.25
Direct gasification, (Zhu et al., 2011))
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.12 2.08 1.90 1.59
Ηigh-temperature gas-ification -steam/oxy-gen-fed entrained flow (Swanson, et al., 2010)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW)
2.66 2.61 2.35 1.92
Low-temperature gas-ification (pressurized, steam/oxygen-fed flu-idized bed gasifier) (Swanson, et al., 2010)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW)
2.73 2.68 2.44 2.03
Scenario A (CAGR=11.7%)
CIC (MW) (num-ber of plants)
200 (1)
250 (1)
756 (4)
6938 (35)
Indirect gasification, Zhu et al., 2011)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.71 1.48 1.48 1.18
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.12 2.07 1.85 1.50
Ηigh-temperature gas-ification -steam/oxy-gen-fed entrained flow (Swanson, et al., 2010)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW)
2.66 2.60 2.31 1.85
Low-temperature gas-ification (pressurized, steam/oxygen-fed flu-idized bed gasifier) (Swanson, et al., 2010)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW)
2.73 2.68 2.41 1.97
Scenario B (CAGR=24.3% )
CIC (MW) (num-ber of plants)
200 (1)
309 (2)
2,711 (14)
208,968 (1045)
Indirect gasification, (Zhu et al., 2011)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.71 1.64 1.36 1.00
Direct gasification, (Zhu et al., 2011))
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.12 2.04 1.70 1.24
Ηigh-temperature gas-ification -steam/oxy-gen-fed entrained flow (Swanson et al., 2010)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW)
2.66 2.57 2.17 1.66
Low-temperature gas-ification (pressurized, steam/oxygen-fed flu-idized bed gasifier) (Swanson, et al., 2010)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW)
2.73 2.65 2.30 1.82
Scenario C
(CAGR %) 0% 5.7%
CIC (MW)
(number of
plants)
200 (1) 200 (1)* 200 (1)* 601 (3)
Indirect gasification, Zhu et al., 2011)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.71 1.70 1.64 1.40
Direct gasification, (Zhu et al., 2011))
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.12 2.11 2.06 1.80
Ηigh-temperature gas-ification -steam/oxy-gen-fed entrained flow (Swanson et al., 2010)
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW)
2.66 2.64 2.51 2.11
Low-temperature gas-ification (pressurized,
Specific invest-ment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.73 2.70 2.56 2.17
24
steam/oxygen-fed flu-idized bed gasifier) (Swanson et al., 2010)
*This refers to an even a smaller capacity of 90 MW according to the WP6 scenario.
Ethanol
In the thermochemical route, biomass is first converted by gasification, typically above 800 oC, into
synthesis gas, which is thereafter conditioned and catalytically converted into ethanol. NREL considers
indirect steam gasification for the conversion of woody biomass to ethanol (Dutta et al., 2010), and the
syngas is then, cleaned, conditioned, and converted to mixed alcohols over a solid catalyst. Two more
studies were used as sources for the current analysis that is , the study of Valle et al., (2013) that inves-
tigates ethanol from biomass via steam–air indirect circulating fluidized bed gasification (iCFBG) and
subsequent catalytic synthesis and the study of Perales et al., (2011) that is based on an entrained flow
gasification conversion process. The initial installed capacity is assumed to be 200 MW. Market demand
values were found for syngas (2024) and bioethanol, and these were used for setting CAGR values in
Scenarios A and B, following the approach described above. It should be noted that the CAGR refers to
the growth rate of bioethanol in general, including first generation production
In Table 17, baseline scenario, Scenario A and Scenario B show that with the selected CAGR values the
cumulative installed capacity in 2050 is 3.0 GW, 6.9 GW and 110 GW, respectively. Their corresponding
scope for CAPEX reduction is 26%, 31% and 43%, respectively, except for the case of Dutta et al. (2010),
where lower CAPEX reductions are presented. This is because of a more detailed decomposition of
process steps into components in this case, thus reducing the relative importance of the more innova-
tive steps, such as the gasifier technology in the gasification step, which affects the overall scope for
CAPEX reduction (i.e., ranging in this case between 16% and 24%, moving from the baseline scenario
to Scenario B, respectively). Scenario C is not presented in this case, since ethanol via biomass gasifica-
tion was not part of the optimal mix for transportation fuels in the scenarios considered from WP6.
Table 16 Parameters of the learning curve model for ethanol via biomass gasification.
Technology Value
Range Region Reference
Learning rate (LR)
Gasification step 0.05
0.05 The minimum value of LR, in accordance with D3.5
Alcohol synthesis 0.05
0.02 The minimum value of LR, in accordance with D3.5
Gasifier (in Gasifi-cation Step)
0.15 0.05 Value greater that 10% that is the aver-age according to Detz et al. (2018), In ac-cordance with D3.5
Cumulative in-stalled capacity (CIC)
25
Gasification step 200 MW
Sweden Based on study for scale up of the GoBi-Gas plant
Alcohol synthesis 200 MW
Global Assumption for a FOAK plant of similar size to GoBiGas scale-up study.
Cumulative an-nual growth rate (CAGR)
Gasification step 0.11
0.03 Global https://www.globenewswire.com/news-re-lease/2019/03/25/1760424/0/en/Global-Syngas-Market-Growth-Trends-and-Forecast-to-2024-Market-is-Expected-to-Grow-at-a-CAGR-of-11-02.html
Alcohol synthesis 0.06
0.02 Global Worldwide, commercial aviation is fore-cast to grow at up to 5% a year and this trend is forecast to continue towards 2050. https://renewable-snow.com/news/ethanol-industry-to-grow-at-cagr-of-6-in-2010-2018-study-70224/
Table 17 Scope for ethanol (via biomass gasification) CAPEX reduction.
Scenarios 2018 2020 2030 2050
Baseline Scenario (CAGR=8.8%)
CIC (MW) (number of plants)
200 (1) 237 (1) 549 (3) 2955 (15)
Duta et al., (2010) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.63 2.60 2.45 2.20
Valle et al., (2013) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.88 2.82 2.56 2.13
Perales et al., 2011 Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.24 2.20 1.98 1.64
Scenario A (CAGR=11.7%)
CIC (MW) (number of plants)
200 (1) 250 (1) 756 (4) 6938 (35)
Duta et al., (2010) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.63 2.59 2.42 2.14
Valle et al., (2013) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.88 2.81 2.48 1.98
Perales et al., 2011 Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.24 2.18 1.92 1.53
Scenario B (CAGR=21.8%)
CIC (MW) (number of plants)
200 (1) 297 (1) 2,135 (11) 110,494 (552)
Duta et al., (2010) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.63 2.57 2.32 2.01
Valle et al., (2013) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.88 2.75 2.24 1.63
Perales et al., (2011)
Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.24 2.14 1.74 1.27
sumption-eea-5#tab-chart_2 for final energy consumption per type of fuel in transportation).
In Table 19, baseline scenario, Scenario A and Scenario B show that with the selected CAGR values the
cumulative installed capacity in 2050 is 2.2 GW, 6.9 GW and 853 GW, respectively. Their corresponding
scope for CAPEX reduction is 22%-30%, 26%-33% and 48%, respectively. On the other hand, Scenario
C assigns a steep increase in CIC until 2030 followed by a decline in the installed capacity; in such cases
no further impact in CAPEX is assumed.
Table 18. Parameters of the learning curve model for pyrolysis-based liquids (diesel and gasoline)
Technology Value
Range Region Reference
Learning rate (LR)
Pyrolysis 0.05
0.02
Daugard et al. (2014)
Hydroprocessing 0.20
0.06
Daugard et al. (2014)
Cumulative installed capacity (CIC)
Pyrolysis 200 MW
Based on study for scale up of the GoBiGas plant
Hydroprocessing 200 MW
Assumption for a FOAK plant of similar size to GoBiGas scale-up study.
Cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR)
Pyrolysis 0.1
0.03 Global Αssumption according to Detz et al. (2018) that refers to most ma-ture technologies having a CAGR between 7% and 13%
Diesel 0.1
0.03 Global Αssumption according to Detz et al. (2018) that refers to most ma-ture technologies having a CAGR between 7% and 13%
27
Technology Value
Range Region Reference
Gasoline 0.1
0.03 Global Αssumption according to Detz et al. (2018) that refers to most ma-ture technologies having a CAGR between 7% and 13%
Table 19. Scope for pyrolysis-based liquids (diesel and gasoline) CAPEX reduction.
Scenarios 2018 2020 2030 2050
Baseline Scenario (CAGR=7.8%)
CIC (MW) (number of plants)
200 (1) 232 (1) 493 (2) 2212 (11)
Zhu et al. (2011) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 0.94 0.92 0.82 0.66
Zhu et al. (2011) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.83 1.80 1.65 1.41
Dutta et al. (2015) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.89 1.86 1.72 1.48
Scenario A (CAGR=11.7%)
CIC (MW) (number of plants)
200 (1) 250 (1) 756 (4) 6,938 (35)
Zhu et al. (2011) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 0.94 0.91 0.80 0.63
Zhu et al. (2011) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.83 1.79 1.62 1.33
Dutta et al. (2015) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.89 1.86 1.68 1.39
Scenario B (CAGR=29.9%)
CIC (MW) (number of plants)
200 (1) 337 (2) 4,596 (23) 853,439 (4,267)
Zhu et al. (2011) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 0.94 0.90 0.73 0.48
Zhu et al., (2011) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.83 1.76 1.44 0.97
Dutta et al. (2015) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.89 1.82 1.49 1.00
Scenario C (CAGR %) 43.6% -1.6%
CIC (MW) (number of plants)
200 (1) 412 (2) 15,359 (77) 11,031 (55)*
Zhu et al. (2011) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 0.94 0.89 0.69 0.69
Zhu et al. (2011) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.83 1.78 1.33 1.33
Dutta et al. (2015) Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 1.89 1.85 1.37 1.37
*The specific investment cost is assumed to remain constant in the scenarios where CIC is reduced.
4.2 Biochemical Pathways
28
Ethanol
Data for ethanol are based on the study of NREL (Humbird et al., 2011) where ethanol is produced from
corn stover through biochemical conversion. Ethanol production is described by one conceptual pro-
cessing step. Cost decomposition is based on the same study and refers to a simulation study for a
plant with capacity of 161 MW ethanol. Learning rates for cellulosic ethanol are based on the study of
Daugaard et al. (2018) and are equal to 0.05, referring to the entire step, whereas from the component
analysis of the ethanol production step, two of them were characterized as less mature: the enzymatic
hydrolysis and fermentation and enzyme production which are sub-steps with more significant poten-
tial for improvements. For the CIC parameter the capacity of the existing ethanol plants in operation is
selected (145 MW according to IEA report, 2020). The CAGR is based on the bioethanol growth rate in
general, including first generation ethanol production (Table 20).
In Table 21, baseline scenario and Scenario A are analysed together because the ethanol production is
already a “green” pathway, namely the concept of conservative or less conservative greening as part of
the overall ethanol market does not apply here. With respect to targeted capacities in Scenario B, eth-
anol is considered as 10% additive in gasoline. As a result, Scenario A and Scenario B show that with
the selected CAGR values the cumulative installed capacity in 2050 is 0.5 GW and 117 GW, respectively.
Their corresponding scope for CAPEX reduction is rising from 11% to 47%, respectively. On the other
hand, Scenario C assigns a steep increase in CIC until 2030, reaching installed capacities of 3.4 GW with
CAPEX reduction of 27%, followed by a decline in the installed capacity until no ethanol is assigned to
the transportation mix of 2050 according to the scenario taken from WP6.
Table 20. Parameters of the learning curve model for ethanol via fermentation
Technology Value
Range Region Reference
Learning rate (LR)
Ethanol Step 0.05
0.02
Daugaard et al. (2018)
Hydrolysis and Fer-mentation (in Ethanol Step)
0.15
0.05
Value greater that 10% that is the av-erage according to Detz et al. (2018), In accordance with D3.5
Cumulative installed capacity (CIC)
Ethanol 145
MW Global
IEA report (2020)
Cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR)
Ethanol 0.06
0.02 Global
Refers to bioethanol market, https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/cagr-of-5-bioethanol-market-escalating-with-cagr-of-5-by-2026-2019-05-21 and https://renewable-snow.com/news/ethanol-industry-to-grow-at-cagr-of-6-in-2010-2018-study-70224/
29
Table 21. Scope for ethanol (via fermentation) CAPEX reduction
Specific investment cost (MEuro/ΜW) 2.30 2.18 1.68 ---
Jet fuels production from ethanol
Calculations are based on a CIC of the existing capacity of 145 MW ethanol from fermentation, as ex-
plained in the previous paragraph, considering also the CAGR of bioethanol that is 6%. The actual pro-
duction capacity of jet (aviation) fuels was estimated based on 75,929 MW of aviation kerosene ob-
tained from European Environmental Agency reports (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/daviz/transport-energy-consumption-eea-5#tab-chart_2) for final energy consumption per type
of fuel in transportation (Table 22).
In Table 23, baseline scenario and Scenario A are analysed together as it is assumed to follow the base-
line growth rate of produced ethanol via fermentation. As a result, Scenario A and Scenario B show that
with the selected CAGR values the cumulative installed capacity in 2050 is 0.5 GW and 38 GW, respec-
tively. Their corresponding scope for CAPEX reduction is rising from 11% to 37%, respectively. On the
other hand, Scenario C assigns a more steep increase in CIC until 2030, reaching installed capacities of
2.8 GW with CAPEX reduction of 21%, followed by a decline in the annual growth rate until a CIC of 33
GW is reached in 2050, resulting in CAPEX reduction of 35% compared to the current CAPEX.
Table 22. Parameters of the learning curve model for jet fuels production via ethanol
Technology Value
Range Region Reference
Learning rate (LR)
Ethanol Step 0.05
0.02
Daugaard et al. (2018)
Hydrolysis and Fermenta-tion (in Ethanol Step)
0.15
0.05
Value greater that 10% that is the av-arage according to Detz et al. (2018), in accordance with D3.5
30
Ethanol to Jet Fuels 0.05
0.02
The minimum value of LR, In accord-ance with D3.5
Cumulative installed ca-pacity (CIC)
Ethanol step 145 MW Adding capacities from http://www.etipbioenergy.eu/value-chains/products-end-use/prod-ucts/cellulosic-ethanol#best
Ethanol to Jet fuels 75,929 MW
Capacity refers to 2,396,089 TJ of avia-tion kerosene for 2017 obtained from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/transport-energy-consumption-eea-5#tab-chart_2 for fi-nal energy consumption per type of fuel in transportation
Cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR)
Ethanol step 0.06
0.02 Global Refers to bioethanol market,
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/cagr-of-5-bioethanol-market-escalating-with-cagr-of-5-by-2026-2019-05-21 and https://renewable-snow.com/news/ethanol-industry-to-grow-at-cagr-of-6-in-2010-2018-study-70224/
Ethanol to Jet fuels 0.05
0.02 Global https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/aviation-fuel-market-2019-global-industry-size-by-leading-manu-facturers-growth-rate-demand-status-professional-study-forecast-to-2026-2019-09-05
Table 23. Scope for jet fuels (via ethanol) CAPEX reduction
Thunman, Henrik , Martin Seemann, Teresa Berdugo Vilches, Jelena Maric, David Pallares, Henrik Stro ̈m,
Go ̈ran Berndes, et al. 2018. “Advanced biofuel production via gasification – lessons learned from 200
man-years of research activity with Chalmers’ research gasifier and the GoBiGas demonstration plant.”
Energy Science and Engineering 6–34.
Thunman, Henrik, Christer Gustavsson, Anton Larsson, Ingemar Gunnarsson, and Freddy Tengberg.
2019. “Economic assessment of advanced biofuel production via gasification using cost data from the
GoBiGas plant.” Energy Science and Engineering.
Valle R., Perales V., Vidal-Barrero A.Gómez-Barea A., Techno-economic assessment of biomass-to-
ethanol by indirect fluidized bed gasification: Impact of reforming technologies and comparison with
entrained flow gasification, Applied Energy 109 (2013) 254–266
Perales V., C. Valle R., P. Ollero P., Gómez-Barea A., Technoeconomic assessment of ethanol production
via thermochemical conversion of biomass by entrained flow gasification, Energy 36 (2011) 4097-
4108
Zhu, Y, SA Tjokro Rahardjo, C Valkenburg, LJ Snowden-Swan, SB Jones, and MA Machinal. 2011.
Techno-economic Analysis for the Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels. PNNL
Appendix A Methanol production
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, (2011) Techno-economic Analysis for the Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels (Indirect gasification)
Input-output ratios Unit
Inputs
Lignocellulosic biomass Dry wood chips MW 437
Catalysts MW methanol/L catalyst 5.00E-03
Natural gas MW 0
Power consumption MW 31
Total water demand m3/hr 219
Outputs
Methanol MW 197
Power Generation (Gross) MW 23
Wastewater m3/hr 83
Ash (Calcium Oxide) kg/hr 2,590
Efficiency biomass to methanol wt.% 43%
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, (2011) Techno-economic Analysis for the Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels (Direct gasifi-cation)
Input-output ratios Unit 2018
Inputs
Lignocellulosic biomass *Dry wood chips) MW 437
Catalysts kg/h methanol/L catalyst 5E-03
Natural gas MW 29
Power consumption MW 24
Total water demand m3/hr 261
Outputs Methanol MW 208
42
Power Generation (Gross) MW 32
Wastewater m3/hr 96
Ash (Calcium Oxide) kg/hr 6,414
Efficiency biomass to methanol wt.% 45%
VTT, 2013, Liquid transportation fuels via large-scale fluidised- bed gasification of lignocellulosic biomass (Direct gasification)
Input-output ratios Unit 2018
Inputs
Dry wood chips MW 335
Oxygen kg/hr 19800
Oxygen kg/hr 15480
Power consumption MW 30
Steam from auxiliary boiler kg/hr 19080
Outputs
Methanol MW 184
Power Generation (Gross) MW 33
District heat (90 °C) MW 0
Efficiency biomass to methanol wt.% 45%
DME production
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, (2011) Techno-economic Analysis for the Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels, (Indirect gas-ification)
Input-output ratios Unit 2018
Inputs
Lignocellulosic biomass Dry wood chips MW 437
Catalysts MW methanol/L catalyst 6E-03
Natural gas MW 0
Power consumption MW 29
Total water demand m3/hr 243
Outputs DME MW 207
43
Power Generation (Gross) MW 29
Wastewater m3/hr 97
Ash (Calcium Oxide) kg/hr 2,590
Efficiency biomass to DME wt.% 34%
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, (2011) Techno-economic Analysis for the Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels, (Direct gasifi-cation)
Input-output ratios Unit 2018
Inputs
Lignocellulosic biomass Dry wood chips MW 437
Catalysts MW methanol/L
catalyst 6.50E-03
Natural gas MW 0
Power consumption MW 20
Total water demand m3/hr 280
Outputs
DME MW 194
Power Generation (Gross) MW 29
Wastewater m3/hr 109
Ash (Calcium Oxide) kg/hr 2590
Efficiency biomass to DME wt.% 32%
VTT (2013), Liquid transportation fuels via large-scale fluidised- bed gasification of lignocellulosic biomass Input-output ratios-mass bal-ance Unit 2018
Inputs
Dry wood chips MW 335
Oxygen kg/hr 19800
Oxygen kg/hr 15480
Power consumption MW 30
Steam from auxiliary boiler kg/hr 30600
Outputs DME MW 179
Power Generation (Gross) MW 36
44
District heat (90 °C) MW 0
Efficiency biomass to DME wt.% 34%
Liquefied biogas
Göteborg Energi, 2019, The GoBiGas Project
Input-output ratios Unit
Inputs
Wood pellets dry tonnes/h 62
Nitrogen m3/h 40
Olivine kg/h 650
Rapeseed Methyl Ester kg/h 700
Limestone kg/h 1
Potassium carbonate, 40 % solution L/h 50
Active carbon kg/h 27
Natural gas m3/h 1000
Power consumption MW 20
Power consumption MWh el/MWh LBG. 0.034
Total water demand m3/h 50
Outputs
Methane MW 200
Bottom ash kg/h 1500
Fly ash kg/h 350
Wastewater m3/h
Efficiency Biomass to methane wt.% 61%
FT liquids (Diesel, jet fuel and gasoline)
45
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Techno-economic Analysis for the Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels, (2011) Indirectly-Heated Gasifier
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Techno-economic Analysis for the Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels, (2011) Directly-Heated Gasifier
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification (2010) Biomass to FT Fuels through High Temperature, Entrained Flow Gasification
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification (2010) Biomass to FT Fuels through Low Temperature, Fluidized Bed Gasification
Reyes Valle et al, (2013) Techno-economic assessment of biomass-to-ethanol by indirect fluidized bed gasification: Impact of reforming technologies and comparison with entrained flow gasification
Reyes Valle et al (2013) Techno-economic assessment of biomass-to-ethanol by indirect fluidized bed gasification: Impact of reforming technologies and comparison with entrained flow gasification
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (2011) Techno-economic Analysis for the Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels, Biomass to Gasoline and Diesel through Fast Pyrolysis
NREL and PNNL (2015) Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbon Fuels, Biomass to Gasoline and Diesel with in Situ Upgrading of Fast Pyrolysis Vapors
Input-output ratios Unit 2018 Unit 2018
Inputs
Blended woody biomass dry tonnes/d 2000
Sand makeup kg/h 0
Natural gas kg/h 24.49
Zeolite catalyst kg/h 156
Hydrotreating catalyst kg/h 7
Hydrocracking catalyst kg/h 1
Caustic (50 wt%) kg/h 132
Boiler feed water chemicals kg/h 1
Cooling tower chemicals kg/h 0.5
Diesel fuel kg/h 32
Power consumption MW 43
Total water demand tonnes/h 20
50
Outputs
Gasoline fuel kg/h 14454 MW 170
Diesel fuel kg/h 5373 MW 64
Power Generation (Gross) MW 48
Wastewater tonnes/h 10 Solids purge from fluidized bed reac-tor kg/h 1159
NREL and PNNL (2015) Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbon Fuels, Biomass to Gasoline and Diesel with Ex Situ Upgrading of Fast Pyrolysis Vapors
Input-output ratios Unit 2018 Unit 2018
Inputs
Blended woody biomass dry tonnes/d 2000
Sand makeup kg/h 72
Natural gas kg/h 57
Zeolite catalyst kg/h 104
Hydrotreating catalyst kg/h 7
Hydrocracking catalyst kg/h 2
Caustic (50 wt%) kg/h 133
Boiler feed water chemicals kg/h 1
Cooling tower chemicals kg/h 0.5
Diesel fuel kg/h 32
Power consumption MW 41
Total water demand tonnes/h 19
Outputs
Gasoline fuel kg/h 9257 MW 110
Diesel fuel kg/h 11221 MW 134
Power Generation (Gross) MW 44
Wastewater tonnes/h 9
Solids purge from fluidized bed reactor kg/h 1059
51
Ethanol from biochemical pathway
Humbird et al. (NREL) (2011) Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol
Ethanol to jet fuels production Geleynse et al. (2018) The Alcohol-to-Jet Conversion Pathway for Drop-In Biofuels: Techno-Economic Evaluation
Input-output ratios Unit 2018 Unit 2018
Inputs
Ethanol dry tonnes/d 181 MW 56
Dehydration catalyst kg/day 9
Oligomerization catalyst kg/day 26
52
Hydrogenation catalyst kg/day 4 Hydrogen tonnes/day 1 Natural gas MW 9 Power consumption MW 2 Refrigeration (-50 C) MW 2
Total water demand tonnes/h 1898
Outputs
Jet fuel kg/h 3149
Gasoline kg/h 450
Diesel kg/h 900
Wastewater m3/h 3
Biomass to Jet Fuels production Aggregation of Humbird et al. (NREL) (2011) and Geleynse et al. (2018) for the biomass to jet fuels production Input-output ratios Unit Aggregate
Jang and Choi (2018) Techno-economic analysis of butanol production from lignocellulosic biomass by concentrated acid pretreatment and hydrolysis plus continuous fermentation
Tao et al (NREL) (2014) Techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessment of cellulosic isobutanol and comparison with cellulosic ethanol and n-butanol
Table B1 presents a matrix associating technical and economic barriers with the related policy mechanisms
that could be applied to overcome these barriers. The analysis of barriers identification and policy mecha-
nisms has been provided in detail, in Deliverable 3.3. In this context, Table 1 presents a representative sam-
ple of barriers and it is not exhaustive for all the possible barriers associated with the advanced biofuels
production paths. Policy mechanisms belong to three wider categories that is, regulations (e.g. quota ob-
ligations, product standards, exemption and reduction of taxes, targets for RESfuel shares in production
and/or consumption and qualifying criteria for incentives, feed-in-tariffs, subsidy, green procurement etc.),
financing (e.g. biomass feedstock premiums, capital grants, technology and feedstock related feed in tariffs
or premiums, tax incentives, R&D grants for short and long term development etc.) and information pro-
vision mechanisms (promotion, capacity building, awareness raising etc.) associating them to barriers and
by extension to technical and economic factors of conversion technologies.
Table B8. Association of barriers to policy mechanisms. The “+” symbol indicates the correlation of a barrier with a policy mechanism. It should be
noted that one barrier can be correlated with more than one policies and vice versa. (will be completed at the end)
Barriers Policy Mechanisms
Capital in-
vestment
grants
Premiums (e.g.
feedstock, con-
version efficiency,
GHG reduction)
and reduced tax-
ation
Regulations
(e.g. quota
obligations,
tax reduc-
tion etc.)
R&D
grants
Innovation
Fund
Tax (or other
CO2 penalty)
for using fossil
fuels
to promote
biofuels
Labor costs
policies
Capacity
building
Standardisation LCA studies and
environomic di-
mensions
Costly auxiliaries
or not available in
commercial scale
(e.g., enzymes,
special catalysts)
and trade-off
among efficiency
and cost
+ + + +
High pre-treat-
ment costs, high
biomass price, and
high logistics costs
+ + + +
Lack of process
integration (heat
and materials, re-
use)
+ + + +
Lack of regulatory
framework to pro-
mote greening of
fossil-fuel infra-
structures
+ + +
Restricted
knowledge/experi-
ence in assem-
bling technology
components
+ + +
Biomass price fluc-
tuations + + +
Unknown condi-
tions for efficiency
related parameters
(e.g. enzymes se-
lection, adjust-
ment of reaction
conditions)
+ + + +
Impurities in the
feedstock influ-
encing the perfor-
mance, excessive
wear of certain
equipment, cellu-
lose washing
+ + + + +
Low enzymatic hy-
drolysis perfor-
mance due to lig-
nin product qual-
ity, yeast process
inhibitor, many or-
ganic waste
streams, recircula-
tion of solvents
and solvent recov-
ery
+ + + +
Liquids properties
not known, diffi-
culties in mixing
+ + +
Reactors and sep-
arations should be
adjusted to scale
up conditions
+ + +
Lack of systematic
framework to as-
sess 2nd genera-
tion fuels sustaina-
bility
+ + +
Liquefied biogas
Table B2: Technical and economic factors, barriers and policy mechanisms for liquefied biomethane production from lignocellulosic biomass
gasification.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Technical
Process efficiency N
Gasification plants can reach, after modifications, theo-
retical efficiency yields in commercial scale. Conversion
efficiency form feedstock to liquefied biomethane is
comparably high.1
Capital investment grants for
higher efficiency technologies
should focus on maximum
utilisation of resulting by-
products (e.g., tars), and re-
duce loss of carbon atoms to
CO2 emissions (e.g., by inno-
vative CCU pathways).
1 The syngas production part of the biomethane path, generally reaches the highest feedstock conversion efficiencies, typically in the range of 71.7-83.5% (Anderson et al. 2013).
The combination of potential improvements in a gasification plant (measures improving the efficiency including the use of additives (potassium and sulfur), high-temperature pre-
heating of the inlet streams, improved insulation of the reactors, drying of the biomass and electrification as decarbonisation means (power-to-gas)) can increase the cold gas
efficiency to 83.5 % LHV-daf, which is technically feasible in a commercial plant. (Alamia et al. 2017).
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Operating
capacity N
Regarding the operating capacity, gasification plants
have achieved continuous operation (e.g., the case of Go-
BiGas).2
Capital investment grants
with priority to specific tech-
nological pathways and con-
version efficiencies. This can
support increasing the num-
ber of demonstration plants
to verify the stability of con-
tinuous operation and test di-
versified biomass feedstock.
Co-location with
existing infra-
structures
M
Co-location of biomass gasification with existing infra-
structures with respect to integration of material and en-
ergy flows. (e.g. district heating, pulp, paper and saw
mills, oil refineries/petrochemical industries) However,
other parameters such as economic and regulatory rea-
sons may constrain it.
Premiums and reduced taxa-
tion
Capacity building
Process design:
aspects
M
Issues with product quality, tar fouling in heat exchang-
ers during syngas cleaning, and tar utilisation are solva-
ble but may require innovations, especially if these issues
appear in technologies demonstrated only in lower
scales.3
Regulations and R&D grants
2 The plant has been in continuous operation in a single run since the beginning of December 2017, namely for more than 1,800 hours, with consistent performance. In total, the
gasifier has been operated for more than 15,000 hours, since its commissioning in 2014. The plant was operational after an initial period of 6 months. Potassium was added to
saturate and stabilise the chemistry that controls the catalytic effect, to assure the quality of the produced gas thereby avoiding any clogging of the product gas cooler. The bed
height of the gasifier was lowered so that the fuel could be fed closer to the surface of the bubbling bed in the gasifier, thereby reducing the heat transfer and clogging of the
fuel-feeding screw and enabling 1800 h of continuous operation (Thunman et al. 2019).
3 It should be noted that the gas cleaning complexity is very similar to what you have out from steam crackers of naptha or old coal gasifiers aiming for providing the petrochemical
industry with building blocks; so large-scale plants can use the solutions previously applied to this kind of processes.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Scale-up aspects
M
Serious technical scale up issues from demonstration to
full scale do not exist, other than biomass availability and
logistic constraints (i.e., the theoretical economic opti-
mum in terms of capacity may not be reached because
of biomass logistics issues)
Νo large biomass gasification plants have ever been built,
however their economic performance can be assessed
with some certainty on the basis of the operation of
demonstration plants.
R&D grants and Innovation
Fund
Economic
Market
conditions
S
Competition with other uses of biomass and develop-
ment of alternative fuels for the transportation and
power sector will play an important role for the enviro-
economic assessment of bio-methane production via bi-
omass gasification.
Biomethane is considered as a suitable alternative to
fossil natural gas for two main applications: direct injec-
tion into natural gas grid and use in transport.
All policies mentioned below
affect market conditions
Labor costs policies for this
kind of plants
Capital invest-
ment and pro-
duction costs
S
Biomass price, logistics and production costs are high;
capital costs are also high, especially when no collocation
is assumed or retrofitting of existing plants. In particular,
the investment cost for handling and preparation of the
feedstock (including drying) is considerable because of
the low energy density and high moisture content of the
fresh biomass.
Sufficient tax (or other CO2
penalty) for using fossil fuels
Feedstock premiums for low
cost residual and waste bio-
mass types
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
As mentioned in the scale-up aspects, there is an inher-
ent trade-off between the economy of scale and the lo-
gistics of biomass for the plant.
Ships running on LNG fuel also have higher capital cost
for the system installation, and thus not a practical fuel
for conventional low-cost shipping4.
Uncertainties of
production cost
S
For first-of-its-kind plant the biggest uncertainty is in
getting high enough availability, thus assuring redun-
dancy that avoid unplanned stops in the production is a
must.5 Temporal and geographical uncertainties pertain-
ing to the estimated production costs are timing of the
investment, the location of the installation and price of
feedstock.
The price of LNG is strongly influenced by transportation
costs as this accounts for a large share of the overall
costs. While large-scale liquefaction of natural gas is an
established technology, small-scale liquefaction of bio-
methane is a recent concept and as such, cost reduction
and efficiency improvements will occur over time6
Feedstock premiums towards
a common framework in EU
countries (a challenging task)
Investor risk
premium
High investment risk premium is expected due to unsta-
ble regulatory framework for investment and market
prices of RESfuels.
Capital grants and Innovation
funds
4 IEA Bioenergy, 2017, Biofuels for the marine shipping sector 5 For newly built processes it is a big challenge to reach high availability as fast as possible after commissioning. 6 Kesieme et al., 2019, Biofuel as an alternative shipping fuel: technological, environmental and economic assessment, Sustainable Energy Fuels
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
M Because the technology is still at the level of first of its
kind plants (at least for the biomass to syngas part) un-
certainty for investments increases.
The GoBiGas plant was built by Göteborg Energi, which
is an energy company owned by the municipality of
Gothenburg and was supported by the Swedish Energy
Agency.
Capacity building and training
for investors and industry on
the needs of this sector
Access to debt
financing
M
This will mainly be a barrier for companies with high
debt-to-equity financing ratios. On the other hand, for
larger companies with a diversified business portfolio
and low debt-to-equity financing ratios, as well as for
public-private partnerships this will not be a significant
barrier. The presently low interest rates also help over-
come this barrier.
Development of green bonds
or loans for green projects.
The new EU innovation fund.
Public Private partnerships
and Joint Ventures
Commercially
available process
components
M
Only one component is considered less mature, namely
the gasifier. The rest of the process components of the
technology have already reached the nth-of-its kind in-
stallation and learning will only be related to the assem-
bly of these parts into a new system.
Training, capacity building,
and certification.
End-use market
development (or
engine develop-
ment)
S
Biomethane fuel characteristics and suitability in marine
engines. LBG (Liquefied Bio-Gas) has high energy density,
but needs to be stored in cryogenic tanks. A new fuel in-
frastructure may be needed (terminals, bunker, new stor-
age facilities and engines on board).
Standardisation (e.g., imple-
mentation of European stand-
ards allowing the use of me-
thane in high concentrations)
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Gaseous fuels such bio-methane will require a different
type of fuel handling system, fuel tanks and gas burning
engines that are not currently in use on most ships.
More fuel space for an equivalent quantity of energy is
needed for fuel storage on board. This will imply that
LNG as a fuel will not be suitable for all ship types.
As LNG is also a relatively new marine fuel, access to fuel-
ing stations is still limited, and there are also needs for
proper LNG storage facilities at ports to facilitate use of
this technology.
Spark-ignited gas engines using the Otto-cycle operat-
ing only on LNG or dual-fuel diesel engines where both
LNG and other fuels can be used. The engine efficiency is
of the same order of magnitude as that for medium
speed diesel engines.
A few small ships have also been recently built with LNG
engines, and were introduced on the marine market since
2010. To switch from LNG to LBG investments and tech-
nological development are needed to introduce their bi-
ogas at central LNG terminals within Europe.
R&D grants for engine devel-
opment (e.g., dedicated to
methane powertrains)
Social perception related to
the toxicity of methanol
Introduction of tax incentives
for using biomethane in fuels.
Comprehensive LCA studies
are essential for comparing al-
ternatives.8
Increasing the LBG refueling
infrastructure
8 Comprehensive LCA based approach would be required for an in-depth comparison of the environmental impact of biofuels used in internal combustion engines (ICVs) and
electric vehicles (EVs). Yet, both these depend on the system boundaries and how the surrounding system develops over time. Thus, the environmental impact of production of
batteries and operating of the EVs will depend on how the electricity mix develops (i.e., its associated GHG emissions). The IC and batteries operating life time and the potential
for recycling their materials after their end of use, particularly when it comes to rare meals in batteries, should also be considered. Finally, biomass use will be linked to other
environmental goals such as biodiversity which may also be subject to discussion and therefore need to be analysed. Considering the urgency of mitigating carbon emissions, it
is likely that both EVs and biofuel fired IC vehicles are needed, but with different penetration over time.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
At present, the utilisation of LNG is negligible in both ship
and Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV) transport7.
Enviro-economic
aspects
M
Sustainability goals in RED II do not clearly include CO2
emission targets per sector, and CO2 taxation in the fu-
ture is uncertain.
From an emissions perspective, LNG is a suitable fuel for
low carbon shipping due to lower CO2 emissions than
distillate and residual fuels as well as the elimination of
SOx and PM emissions (IEA, 2017).
It contains very little sulphur and can hold more energy
per tonne than MDO.
However, LNG and associated methane gas leaks do not
contribute to solving the fossil fuel dependency nor the
climate change related issues.
The overall (well to wheels/WTW) GHG performance
range from -12% to +9%, depending on the mode of
transport. The GHG savings range from -7% to +6% com-
pared to diesel in cars. In heavy duty, the range is -2% to
+5% compared to best in class diesel trucks and depend-
ing on fuel engine technology. In shipping, the figures
are -12% to +9% compared to marine gas oil (MGO) and
they are highly dependent on methane slip (Transport
and Environment, 2018)9
Regulations
Targeted investments and
R&D in value chains for the
enviro-economic optimal
transportation sectors.
7 BMVI, 2014, LNG as an alternative fuel for the operation of ships and heavy duty vehicles 9 https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2018_10_TE_CNG_and_LNG_for_vehicles_and_ships_the_facts_EN.pdf
Dimethyl Ether – DME
Table B3: Technical and economic factors, barriers and policy mechanisms for DME production from lignocellulosic biomass gasification.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Technical
Process efficiency N
Gasification plants can reach, after modifications, theo-
retical efficiency yields in commercial scale. Conversion
efficiency form feedstock to biomethanol is comparably
high.10
Capital investment grants for
higher efficiency technologies
should focus on maximum
utilisation of resulting by-
products (e.g., tars), and re-
duce loss of carbon atoms to
CO2 emissions (e.g., by inno-
vative CCU pathways).
Operating
capacity N
Regarding the operating capacity, gasification plants
have achieved continuous operation (e.g., the case of Go-
BiGas).11
Capital investment grants
with priority to specific tech-
nological pathways and con-
version efficiencies. This can
10 As for the syngas production part of the DME path, it generally reaches the highest feedstock conversion efficiencies, typically in the range of 71.7-83.5% (Anderson et al. 2013).
The combination of potential improvements in a gasification plant (measures improving the efficiency including the use of additives (potassium and sulfur), high-temperature pre-
heating of the inlet streams, improved insulation of the reactors, drying of the biomass and electrification as decarbonisation means (power-to-gas)) can increase the cold gas
efficiency to 83.5 % LHV-daf, which is technically feasible in a commercial plant. (Alamia et al. 2017).
Energy efficiencies for biomass to MeOH/DME synthesis were found to be 56-58% and 51-53%, respectively, taking LHV as reference. This efficiency is enhanced to 87 to 88%
(LHV) if district heating is also counted as one of the products. (Sikarvar et al. 2017 )
11 The plant has been in continuous operation in a single run since the beginning of December 2017, namely for more than 1,800 hours, with consistent performance. In total,
the gasifier has been operated for more than 15,000 hours, since its commissioning in 2014. The plant was operational after an initial period of 6 months. Potassium was added to
saturate and stabilise the chemistry that controls the catalytic effect, to assure the quality of the produced gas thereby avoiding any clogging of the product gas cooler. The bed
height of the gasifier was lowered so that the fuel could be fed closer to the surface of the bubbling bed in the gasifier, thereby reducing the heat transfer and clogging of the
fuel-feeding screw and enabling 1800 h of continuous operation (Thunman et al. 2019).
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
support increasing the num-
ber of demonstration plants
to verify the stability of con-
tinuous operation and test di-
versified biomass feedstock.
Co-location with
existing infra-
structures
M
Co-location of biomass gasification with existing infra-
structures with respect to integration of material and en-
ergy flows. (e.g. district heating, pulp, paper and saw
mills, oil refineries/petrochemical industries) However,
other parameters such as economic and regulatory rea-
sons may constrain it.
Syngas produced during gasification can also be con-
verted to dimethyl ether (DME) by methanol dehydration
or methane via the Sabatier process. For the production
of DME, methanol is currently, for the main part pro-
duced
Premiums and reduced taxa-
tion
Capacity building
Process design:
aspects
M
Issues with product quality, tar fouling in heat exchang-
ers during syngas cleaning, and tar utilisation are solva-
ble but may require innovations, especially if these issues
appear in technologies demonstrated only in lower
scales.12
Regulations and R&D grants
Scale-up aspects
Serious technical scale up issues from demonstration to
full scale do not exist, other than biomass availability and
R&D grants and Innovation
Fund
12 It should be noted that the gas cleaning complexity is very similar to what you have out from steam crackers of naptha or old coal gasifiers aiming for providing the petro-
chemical industry with building blocks; so large-scale plants can use the solutions previously applied to this kind of processes.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
M
logistic constraints (i.e., the theoretical economic opti-
mum in terms of capacity may not be reached because
of biomass logistics issues)
Νo large biomass gasification plants have ever been built,
however their economic performance can be assessed
with some certainty on the basis of the operation of
demonstration plants.
Economic
Market
conditions
S
Competition with other uses of biomass and develop-
ment of alternative fuels for the transportation and
power sector will play an important role for the enviro-
economic assessment of DME production via biomass
gasification.
All policies mentioned below
affect market conditions
Labor costs policies for this
kind of plants
Capital invest-
ment and pro-
duction costs
S
Biomass price, logistics and production costs are high;
capital costs are also high, especially when no collocation
is assumed or retrofitting of existing plants. In particular,
the investment cost for handling and preparation of the
feedstock (including drying) is considerable because of
the low energy density and high moisture content of the
fresh biomass.
As mentioned in the scale-up aspects, there is an inher-
ent trade-off between the economy of scale and the lo-
gistics of biomass for the plant.
Sufficient tax (or other CO2
penalty) for using fossil fuels
Feedstock premiums for low
cost residual and waste bio-
mass types
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Uncertainties of
production cost
S
For first-of-its-kind plant the biggest uncertainty is in
getting high enough availability, thus assuring redun-
dancy that avoid unplanned stops in the production is a
must. 13 Temporal and geographical uncertainties per-
taining to the estimated production costs are timing of
the investment, the location of the installation and price
of feedstock.
Feedstock premiums towards
a common framework in EU
countries (a challenging task)
Investor risk
premium
M
High investment risk premium is expected due to unsta-
ble regulatory framework for investment and market
prices of RESfules.
Because the technology is still at the level of first of its
kind plants (at least for the biomass to syngas part) un-
certainty for investments increases.
The GoBiGas plant was built by Göteborg Energi, which
is an energy company owned by the municipality of
Gothenburg and was supported by the Swedish Energy
Agency.
Capital grants and Innovation
funds
Capacity building and training
for investors and industry on
the needs of this sector
Access to debt
financing
M
This will mainly be a barrier for companies with high
debt-to-equity financing ratios. On the other hand, for
larger companies with a diversified business portfolio
and low debt-to-equity financing ratios, as well as for
public-private partnerships this will not be a significant
Development of green bonds
or loans for green projects.
The new EU innovation fund.
Public Private partnerships
and Joint Ventures
13 For newly built processes it is a big challenge to reach high availability as fast as possible after commissioning.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S), Mod-
erate (M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
barrier. The presently low interest rates also help over-
come this barrier.
Commercially
available process
components
M
Only one component is considered less mature, namely
the gasifier. The rest of the process components of the
technology have already reached the nth-of-its kind in-
stallation and learning will only be related to the assem-
bly of these parts into a new system.
Training, capacity building,
and certification.
End-use market
development (or
engine develop-
ment)
M
Alternative fuels to diesel and LNG such as dimethyl ether
(DME) and water-in-diesel emulsions (WiDE) have also
been explored, but are not yet produced at large scale or
traded on the commodity market (IEA Bioenergy, 2017).
The totally different fuel injection system is required for
DME than for diesel due to its gaseous nature. Mild pres-
sure is needed to keep DME in liquid form. However, ret-
rofitting of diesel engines for DME use is possible and
was demonstrated by Volvo Trucks.
DME can be applied as a neat fuel and it is commonly
considered for light/heavy road transportation, but there
is not yet any commercial biofuel production for shipping
vessels, due to the low production capacity and the in-
sufficient transport infrastructure (IEA Bioenergy, 2017).
R&D grants for engine devel-
opment (e.g., dedicated to
DME powertrains)
Introduction of tax incentives
for using bioDME in fuels.
Comprehensive LCA studies
are essential for comparing al-
ternatives.
Increasing the DME refueling
infrastructure
Enviro-economic
aspects
M Sustainability goals in RED II do not clearly include CO2
emission targets per sector, and CO2 taxation in the fu-
ture is uncertain.
Regulations
Targeted investments and
R&D in value chains for the
enviro-economic optimal
transportation sectors.
Butanol Butanol is an attractive renewable liquid transportation biofuel which is preferable to ethanol in terms of fuel properties such as high calorific
value, low freezing point, high hydrophobicity, low flammability, and corrosiveness. Additionally, butanol is amenable to pipeline distribution
and it can be used with or without blending with gasoline in existing vehicles without any modification. Production of butanol is supported by
governments around the globe including the United States (US), which mandates an annual production of 16 billion gal of cellulosic biofuels
out of total 36 billion gal of renewable biofuels by 2022. 14
Butanol was traditionally produced by ABE fermentation - the anaerobic conversion of carbohydrates by strains of Clostridium into acetone,
butanol and ethanol. However, there are many barriers regarding this technology that make ABE butanol competitive on a commercial scale
with butanol produced synthetically and almost all ABE production ceased as the petrochemical industry evolved. However, there is now in-
creasing interest in use of biobutanol as a transport fuel. 85% Butanol/gasoline blends can be used in unmodified petrol engines. It can be
transported in existing gasoline pipelines and produces more power per litre than ethanol. Biobutanol can be produced from cereal crops,
sugar cane and sugar beet, etc, but can also be produced from cellulosic raw materials.15
Table B4: Technical and economic factors, barriers and policy mechanisms for butanol production from lignocellulosic ABE process.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms
to overcome barriers
Technical
Process efficiency S
In conventional ABE fermentations, n-butanol yield is low, typically
approximately 15 wt% and rarely in excess of 25 wt. (Ling Tao, Xin
He)
Technology and/or in-
novation premiums16
14 Baral et al., (2016), Techno-Economic Analysis of Cellulosic Butanol Production from Corn Stover through Acetone−Butanol−Ethanol
Fermentation, Energy Fuels 15 https://www.etipbioenergy.eu/value-chains/products-end-use/products/biobutanol 16 Technology or innovation premiums aim at stimulating the capacity for innovation of companies engaged in research and development.
Efforts for commercial operation have been reported and a number
of technical challenges have been overcome (e.g. improved batch
turnaround times, avoidance of infections, etc) in the first months
of operation, and the company was on target to produce 50,000 to
100,000 gallons per month of isobutanol by the end of 2014
[Source: Gevo]. The company reports that is getting close to the
efficiency required for fully commercial operation. Various compa-
nies such as Cobalt, Green Biologics, GranBio, Microvi, Optinol and
Rhodia are all examples of companies working to commercialize n-
butanol production17.
Capital investment
grants with banding
for increasing the
number of demon-
stration and commer-
cial plants to verify the
stability of continuous
operation
R&D grants
Co-location with
existing infra-
structures
M
Several of these companies intend to retrofit existing sugar or corn
mills for butanol fermentation and recovery.
China is foreseeing to retrofit its existing conventional starch-based
refineries to use cheaper cellulosic materials as feedstock for buta-
nol production. Retrofit of old refineries and pulp and paper indus-
try may be a way of acceleration f butanol production especially in
developed countries (Brazil, USA) 18
Premiums and re-
duced taxation
Capacity building
17 IEA Bioenergy, (2014), The potential and challenges of Drop-in biofuels 18 Sarangi et al., Recent Advancements in Biofuels and Bioenergy Utilization, Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms
to overcome barriers
Process design:
aspects
S
Acetone and ethanol are produced as co-products limiting the yield
of butanol and increasing the complexity of product separation
(e.g. liquid-liquid extraction), which can be very energy-intensive.
The main problem associated with the ABE fermentation by bacte-
ria is the self-inhibition of the process due to n-butanol toxicity to
the culture. Mentioned toxicity of solvent to the culture and nutri-
ent depletion during long time fermentation processes are two
main factors caused premature termination of the fermentation.
Apart from the low butanol yield, its separation becomes difficult
and expensive process, unlike ethanol.
Another limitation that builds up is the selection of biomass along
with pretreatment process.
Whatever the pretreatment process may be, detoxification is very
crucial for removal of inhibitors generated during this processes
Regulations and R&D
grants
Scale-up aspects
S
Advanced fermentation technologies are being developed by the
expert groups to resolve problems such as low cell density, viability,
and solvent sensitivity by modulations in the methods of carbon
feeding, mode of culture, and in situ removal and recovery of sol-
vents.19
R&D grants and Inno-
vation Fund
Economic
19 Sukumaran et al., (2011), Chapter 25 - Butanol Fuel from Biomass: Revisiting ABE Fermentation, Biofuels: Alternative Feedstocks and Con-
version Processes
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms
to overcome barriers
Market condi-
tions
S
Comparing with methanol and ethanol n-butanol is a more com-
plex alcohol, possessing several advantageous characteristics:
higher heating value, lower volatility, less ignition problems, higher
viscosity and is safer for distribution. Moreover, n-butanol can be
blended with petrol at any ratio. Furthermore, using butanol as a
fuel enables reduction of NOx
Τhere is increasing interest in use of biobutanol as a transport fuel.
85% Butanol/gasoline blends can be used in unmodified petrol en-
gines.
All policies mentioned
below affect market
conditions
Capital invest-
ment and pro-
duction costs
S
The low n-butanol yield and n-butanol concentration could make
n-butanol production by ABE fermentation more expensive than
from petroleum.
Due to low crude oil prices, commercial n-butanol operations from
sugar-based raw materials ended in the 1980s.
Although lignocellulosic biomass can be used as a cheap source of
substrates for ABE fermentation, the main challenge of using ligno-
cellulosic biomass as feedstock is the additional costs of sugar pro-
duction compared to molasses or starches
Apart from other technical challenging issues associated with ABE
fermentation common to all feedstocks, butanol toxicity and low
recovery can hinder its commercial production, which significantly
increases the cost of recovery and separation (Ezeji et al. 2007) and
therefore the production cost. Although the sustainable production
of butanol from renewable biomass is gaining momentum in the
biofuel sector (Jung et al. 2013; Gao et al. 2014), the cost of the
Feedstock premiums
for low cost residual
and waste biomass
types
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms
to overcome barriers
substrate only accounts for 60% of the overall production cost.
Hence, low cost and year-round availability are the key issues for
the successful development of the biotechnological route.
Uncertainties of
production cost
S
Lignocellulosic biomass is regarded as the suitable substrate for
conversion into biobutanol through ABE fermentation, The feed-
stock seasonality, the intense pretreatment requirement and re-
quirement of expensive hydrolytic enzymes, are factors which cause
the increase of the price of butanol and hinder its commercialization
(Shafiei et al. 2011, 2013, 2014; Boonsombuti et al.)
Feedstock premiums
towards a common
framework in EU
countries (a challeng-
ing task)
Investor risk pre-
mium
M
Moderate to high investment risk premium (e.g., lower than the
gasification- based fuels because of experience from the operation
and logistics of the starch based plants). It shares, however, with all
RESfuels the unstable regulatory framework for investment and
market prices.
Capital grants and In-
novation funds
Capacity building and
training for investors
and industry on the
needs of this sector
Access to debt fi-
nancing
M
Companies with experience in starch based plants, old refineries,
pulp & paper industry are expected to have substantial know-how
in access to debt-financing. Still, larger companies with a diversified
business portfolio and low debt to equity financing as well as pub-
lic-private partnerships will overcome this barrier more easily. The
presently low interest rates also help overcome this barrier.
Public Private partner-
ships and Joint Ven-
tures
Commercially
available process
components
N
There is experience from ABE and fermentation processes Training, capacity
building, and certifica-
tion.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms
to overcome barriers
End-use market
development (or
engine develop-
ment)
M
Neither ethanol nor butanol are currently considered suitable for
direct blending with conventional jet fuel (Hileman & Stratton, in
press; ALFA-BIRD, 2012; Hileman et al., 2009). However, there is
now increasing interest in use of biobutanol as a transport fuel.
Compared to conventional gasoline, n-butanol’s anti-knock index
is in the same range and thus will not cause a negative impact on
engine knock. N-butanol’s high heat of evaporation provides addi-
tional charge cooling to prevent engine knock when used in gaso-
line direct-injection engines. This allows better engine spark timing
at high loads and thus improves engine thermal efficiency20. In gen-
eral, isobutanol is a better butanol isomer than n-butanol for spark-
ignition engines. Isobutanol has significantly higher RON than n-
butanol.
Isobutanol ASTM D7862standards for blends of butanol with gas-
oline at 1 - 12.5 % vol in automotive spark ignition engines21.
Standardisation (e.g.,
implementation of Eu-
ropean standards al-
lowing the use of bu-
tanol in high concen-
trations)
R&D grants
Introduction of tax in-
centives for using bio-
butanol in fuels.
Comprehensive LCA
studies are essential
for comparing alter-
natives.
Increasing the butanol
refueling infrastruc-
ture
Enviro-economic
aspects
M Sustainability goals in RED II do not clearly include CO2 emission
targets per sector, and CO2 taxation in the future is uncertain.
Regulations
20 Ling Tao, Xin He, Eric C. D. Tan, Min Zhang and Andy Aden, Comparative techno-economic analysis and reviews of n-butanol production from corn
Tests of passenger car exhaust emissions tested over the New Eu-
ropean Driving Cycle transient cycle showed that adding 10% n-
butanol to gasoline caused a significant decrease in particulate
matter and smoke emissions, had no effect on NOx and carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions, and resulted in higher CO and HC emis-
sions. At high blending levels, oxygenated compounds could ac-
count for more than half of the total hydrocarbon emissions (Tao
et al., 2013).
Targeted investments
and R&D in value
chains for the enviro-
economic optimal
transportation sectors.
Pyrolysis upgrading pathways processes (and production of diesel and gasoline (or naphtha))
Table B5: Technical and economic factors, barriers and policy mechanisms for pyrolysis pathways for advanced biofuels
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Technical
Process efficiency N
Fast pyrolysis is the most feasible way to convert biomass
into liquid fuels and give highest yield to liquid fuel prod-
ucts and retains most of the energy from feedstock.
The liquid product, known as bio-oil, is obtained in yields
up to 75% by weight on a dry feed basis22
Catalytic fast pyrolysis combines the fast pyrolysis of bio-
mass with the catalytic transformation of the primary py-
rolysis vapors to more desirable and less oxygenated liq-
uid fuels. These liquid fuels can readily be upgraded to
transportable liquid while simultaneously increasing en-
ergy density.23
Capital investment grants for
higher efficiency technologies
should focus on maximum
utilisation of resulting by-
products (e.g., tars), and re-
duce loss of carbon atoms to
CO2 emissions (e.g., by inno-
vative CCU pathways).
Operating capac-
ity N
At present, there is a number of commercial and semi-
commercial plants running in EU and outside EU, produc-
ing bio-oil for CHP applications, but upgrading the bio-
oil to transport fuels has not been fully demonstrated yet
and many of the upgrading processes can be defined at
an early stage of development (IRENA, 2016).
Capital investment grants
with priority to specific tech-
nological pathways and con-
version efficiencies. This can
support increasing the num-
ber of demonstration plants
22 PNNL, 2009, Production of Gasoline and Diesel from Biomass via Fast Pyrolysis, Hydrotreating and Hydrocracking: A Design Case 23 Bhutto, A., Qureshi, K., Abro, R., Harijan, K., Zhao, Z., Bazmi, A., Abbas T., and Yu, G., Progress in the production of biomass-to-liquid biofuels to
decarbonize the transport sector – prospects and challenges, RSC Adv., 2016,6, 32140–32170
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
to verify the stability of con-
tinuous operation and test di-
versified biomass feedstock.
Co-location with
existing infra-
structures
M
Bio-oil is poorly suited for direct blending in oil refineries.
Catalysts are affected from O2 and H2O content.
The upgrading step uses standard refining processes, and
it may therefore be possible to co-process pyrolysis oil in
existing oil refineries.
Co-location eliminates the need for a Pressure Swing Ad-
sorption (PSA) unit in the hydrotreating section if the up-
grading unit off-gas can be sent to refinery hydrogen
generation. In return, the upgrading unit receives refin-
ery hydrogen at a lower cost. All final processing of the
stable oil to fuels occurs in the refinery.
Premiums and reduced taxa-
tion
Capacity building
Process design:
aspects
M
Key parameters affecting the yield of bio-oil are temper-
ature, heating rate, residence time, and particle size
Catalyst improvements are also a major opportunity in
the upgrading step.
Bio-oils contain large amounts of water and oxygenated
compounds as well as char particles. They also have draw-
backs as combustion fuels such as low energy density, ig-
nition difficulties, high viscosity and instability as well as
low pH and high particulate.
Regulations and R&D grants
Scale-up aspects
Upgrading capacity for pyrolysis oil will at first instance
largely use existing refinery infrastructure.
R&D grants and Innovation
Fund
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
M
The low H/C ratio in the bio-oils imposes a relatively low
limit on the hydrocarbon yield and, in addition, the tech-
nical feasibility is not yet completely proven.
Catalyst deactivation raises many concerns for both
routes, although the coking problem with zeolites can in
principle be overcome by a conventional FCC arrange-
ment with continuous catalyst regeneration by oxidation
of the coke. The processing costs are high and the prod-
ucts are not competitive with fossil fuels. A projected typ-
ical yield of aromatics suitable for gasoline blending from
biomass is about 20 wt % or 45% in energy terms.24
Economic
Market condi-
tions
S
To overcome the commercialization hurdles resulting
from the heterogeneity of bio-oils, a set of standards has
recently been approved by ASTM. The ASTM D7544 fast
pyrolysis oil burner fuel standard was approved in 2010
for Grade G and in 2012 for Grade D bio-oils. (IEA Bioen-
ergy, 2019)
These standards qualify pyrolysis oils as burner fuels and
they provide benchmark-type minimum requirements
upon which applications and trading of bio-oils can be
based.
A constant and better quality bio-oil available at an at-
tractive price is necessary for commercial, large-scale ap-
plications.
All policies mentioned below
affect market conditions
Labor costs policies for this
kind of plants
24 Czernik S., Overview of Applications of Biomass Fast Pyrolysis Oil, Energy & Fuels 2004, 18, 590-598
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Capital invest-
ment and pro-
duction costs
S
As capital costs for upgrading bio-oils are high it would
be synergistically beneficial if existing oil refinery equip-
ment could be used to process these biomass derived liq-
uids. The processes used to upgrade bio-oils resemble
those used to upgrade vegetable oils to drop-in biofuels,
although pyrolysis liquids are significantly more challeng-
ing a feedstock to upgrade than are vegetable oils (VOs)
(IEA Bioenergy, 2019)
Sufficient tax (or other CO2
penalty) for using fossil fuels
Feedstock premiums for low
cost residual and waste bio-
mass types
Uncertainties of
production cost
S
For first-of-its-kind plant the biggest uncertainty is in
getting high enough availability, thus assuring redun-
dancy that avoid unplanned stops in the production is a
must.25 Temporal and geographical uncertainties pertain-
ing to the estimated production costs are timing of the
investment, the location of the installation and price of
feedstock.
Although pyrolysis has great potential as a low cost liquid
fuel, it also has some disadvantages due to the relatively
high oxygen content of bio-oils. In “petroleum-like”
drop-in biofuels the oxygen has to be removed and this
is the primary objective of technologies that try to up-
grade bio-oils to transport fuels. Depending on the up-
grading efficiency of pyrolysis oils and the price trends of
petroleum, bio-oil could become competitive in the near
future (IEA Bioenergy, 2014).
Feedstock premiums towards
a common framework in EU
countries (a challenging task)
25 For newly built processes it is a big challenge to reach high availability as fast as possible after commissioning.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Investor risk pre-
mium
M
High investment risk premium is expected due to unsta-
ble regulatory framework for investment and market
prices of RESfuels.
Because the technology is still at the level of first of its
kind plants (at least for the biomass to bio-oil part) un-
certainty for investments increases.
Capital grants and Innovation
funds
Capacity building and training
for investors and industry on
the needs of this sector
Access to debt fi-
nancing
M
This will mainly be a barrier for companies with high
debt-to-equity financing ratios. On the other hand, for
larger companies with a diversified business portfolio and
low debt-to-equity financing ratios, as well as for public-
private partnerships this will not be a significant barrier.
The presently low interest rates also help overcome this
barrier.
Development of green bonds
or loans for green projects.
The new EU innovation fund.
Public Private partnerships
and Joint Ventures
Commercially
available process
components
M
Upgrading steps are in pre-commercial stages Training, capacity building,
and certification.
End-use market
development (or
engine develop-
ment)
M
Bio-oil differs from conventional liquid fuels and must
therefore overcome both technical and marketing hur-
dles prior to its acceptance in the market.
To standardize bio-oil quality in the liquid fuels market,
specifications are needed.
Green Diesel from upgraded pyrolysis bio-oil could po-
tentially be used as a drop-in substitution for fossil diesel
in road-transportation, and MGO in marine applications.
Additionally, from the lighter fractions of the hydro-
Standardisation (e.g., imple-
mentation of European stand-
ards allowing the use pyroly-
sis-based fuels i.e diesel &
gasoline in high concentra-
tions)
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
treated pyrolysis oil (HPO), a potential substitution for
fossil gasoline could be produced.
Introduction of tax incentives
for using pyrolysis based
fuels.
Comprehensive LCA studies
are essential for comparing al-
ternatives.
Increasing the refueling infra-
structure
Enviro-economic
aspects
M Sustainability goals in RED II do not clearly include CO2
emission targets per sector, and CO2 taxation in the fu-
ture is uncertain.
Regulations
Targeted investments and
R&D in value chains for the
enviro-economic optimal
transportation sectors.
FT synthesis liquid fuels
Table B6: Technical and economic factors, barriers and policy mechanisms for FT liquids
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Technical
Process efficiency M
Selectivity to required diesel, jet or gasoline fractions are
typically limited to less than 40%. Significant amounts of
unwanted olefins, alcohols, acids, ketones, water and CO2
are also produced.
Capital investment grants for
higher efficiency technologies
should focus on maximum
utilisation of resulting by-
products (e.g., tars), and re-
duce loss of carbon atoms to
CO2 emissions (e.g., by inno-
vative CCU pathways).
Operating capac-
ity M
Commercial biomass-to-liquid (BTL) process has not
been completely established.
Capital investment grants
with priority to specific tech-
nological pathways and con-
version efficiencies. This can
support increasing the num-
ber of demonstration plants
to verify the stability of con-
tinuous operation and test di-
versified biomass feedstock.
Co-location with
existing infra-
structures
M
Co-processing Fischer-Tropsch waxes at existing crude
oil refineries (e.g. as developed at the company OMV) is
a potential innovation opportunity. This achieves greater
economies of scale and efficiencies than can be found at
small-scale facilities.
Premiums and reduced taxa-
tion
Capacity building
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
However, extremely limited volumes of Fischer-Tropsch
waxes from biomass are available and this opportunity
depends on logistics, and the availability and willingness
of existing refineries to co-process. 26
Plant capex savings could amount to 15% but use of third
party equipment would probably come with additional
costs.
Co-gasification of biomass and coal has been broadly in-
vestigated by researchers (Collot et al., 1999; Aigner et al.,
2011; Taba et al., 2012), because it creates opportunities
in industries for biofuels production.
Process design:
aspects
M
Cleaning of syngas is necessary as FT is sensitive to im-
purities, but requires high capital investments and subse-
quent steps of cooling and re-heating (Ail and Dasappa,
2016). Fischer-Tropsch synthesis can use syngas derived
from any source including biomass, coal or natural gas
and it can produce precursors for a wide range of drop-
in chemicals and fuel. As long as the syngas is treated and
conditioned properly and there is a good H2/CO ratio,
functional and chemical equivalence can be achieved be-
tween the syngas derived from these disparate feed-
stocks (IEA bioenergy, Drop-in biofuels, 2019)
Although with a biomass feedstock it is more difficult to
achieve the same level of syngas purity as with natural
Regulations and R&D grants
26 IRENA (2016) Innovation Outlook, Advanced liquid Biofuels
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
gas, a near chemical equivalence can be reached. Scale-
up is possible based on the know-how and facilities of
existing natural gas and coal gasification FTS plants. (IEA,
bioenergy, Drop-in biofuels, 2019)
Fischer-Tropsch catalysts need a tightly specified carbon
monoxide to hydrogen ratio, which can require a water
gas reaction after syngas clean-up. This adds to costs and
loss of yield because CO2 is emitted to produce hydro-
gen. (IEA, bioenergy, Drop-in biofuels 2019)
The Fischer-Tropsch reactor design influences the cata-
lyst lifetime and reaction rate.
Scale-up aspects
M
Demonstration plants have been established to scale
down the Fischer-Tropsch process to a size appropriate
to a supply chain based on biomass.
FT is an established technology, and many components
of the system are already proven in coal-to-liquid or gas-
to-liquid plants.
What remains unproven is the BtL at a commercial scale
due to technical barriers as identified by Sims et al. (2010).
R&D grants and Innovation
Fund
Economic
Market condi-
tions
S
Competition of biomass-based products with fossil-
based equivalents, no tax for fossil fuels and high produc-
tion costs
All policies mentioned below
affect market conditions
Labor costs policies for this
kind of plants
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Capital invest-
ment and pro-
duction costs
S
High capital cost due to the multistage character of the
process. Production costs are even higher as the opti-
mum scale of operation requires feedstock on an eco-
nomic price whereas transportation costs are also an im-
portant factor. Hence, the economy of scale is decreased
compared to a large coal or gas-based operation. Run-
ning and maintenance costs are also comparatively
high.27
Sufficient tax (or other CO2
penalty) for using fossil fuels
Feedstock premiums for low
cost residual and waste bio-
mass types
Uncertainties of
production cost
S
The cost of gasification-derived biofuels can be estimated
quite accurately since the processes are based on estab-
lished industrial and pilot processes. A study of
ISU/ConocoPhillips/NREL (Swanson et al., 2010) has esti-
mated the cost of gasoline produced from FT conversion
of biomass syngas (IEA Bioenergy, 2014)
For first-of-its-kind plant the biggest uncertainty is in
getting high enough availability, thus assuring redun-
dancy that avoid unplanned stops in the production is a
must. 28 Temporal and geographical uncertainties per-
taining to the estimated production costs are timing of
the investment, the location of the installation and price
of feedstock.
Feedstock premiums towards
a common framework in EU
countries (a challenging task)
27 https://www.etipbioenergy.eu/value-chains/products-end-use/products/ft-liquids 28 For newly built processes it is a big challenge to reach high availability as fast as possible after commissioning.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Large scales are required to benefit from economies of
scale both for the gasifier as well as the catalytic equip-
ment, but this is often problematic for biomass installa-
tions due to biomass supply logistics.
Investor risk pre-
mium
M
High investment risk premium is expected due to unsta-
ble regulatory framework for investment and market
prices of RESfuels.
Because the technology is still at the level of first of its
kind plants (at least for the biomass to syngas part) un-
certainty for investments increases.
Capital grants and Innovation
funds
Capacity building and training
for investors and industry on
the needs of this sector
Access to debt fi-
nancing
M
This will mainly be a barrier for companies with high
debt-to-equity financing ratios. On the other hand, for
larger companies with a diversified business portfolio and
low debt-to-equity financing ratios, as well as for public-
private partnerships this will not be a significant barrier.
The presently low interest rates also help overcome this
barrier.
Development of green bonds
or loans for green projects.
The new EU innovation fund.
Public Private partnerships
and Joint Ventures
Commercially
available process
components
M
This is an established technology, and many components
of the system are already proven and operational for dec-
ades in coal-to-liquid or gas-to-liquid plants. The aggre-
gated part, BtL process, remains unproven at a commer-
cial scale due to technical barriers as identified by Sims et
al. (2010) which still need to be overcome.29
Training, capacity building,
and certification.
29 M. Padella, A. O’Connell, M. Prussi, E. Flitris, L. Lonza, Sustainable Advanced Biofuels Technology Development Report 2018, EUR 29908 EN,
European Commission, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-12431-3, doi:10.2760/95648, JRC118317
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Application of the process to biomass is however rela-
tively novel, and has yet to be fully optimised. Gasification
technologies require development, especially regarding
feedstock handling and logistics (Maniatis, Weitz &
Zschocke, 2013; Güell et al., 2012). Fischer-Tropsch pro-
cesses require less extensive adaptation, due to the com-
positional similarity of syngas produced from biomass
and fossil fuels. 30
End-use market
development (or
engine develop-
ment)
M
Coal, natural gas, biomass derived FT-SPK can be used in
blends of up to 50% with conventional jet fuel for com-
mercial flights30,31.
Green Diesel could potentially be used as a drop-in sub-
stitution for fossil diesel in road transportation and MGO
in marine applications. Potential substitution for fossil
gasoline could also be applied.
Standardisation (e.g., imple-
mentation of European stand-
ards allowing the use of FT
based fuels in high concentra-
tions)
Introduction of tax incentives
for using RESfuels.
Comprehensive LCA studies
are essential for comparing al-
ternatives.
Increasing the refueling infra-
structure
30 Rebecca Mawhood, Adriana Rodriguez Cobas, Raphael Slade; (2014), Biojet fuel supply Chain Development and Flight Operations (Renjet) Establish-
ing a European renewable jet fuel supply chain: the technoeconomic potential of biomass conversion technologie, Imperial, College London 31 CAO-UNDP-GEF, 2017, Sustainable Aviation Fuels Guide
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Enviro-economic
aspects
M Sustainability goals in RED II do not clearly include CO2
emission targets per sector, and CO2 taxation in the fu-
ture is uncertain.
The environmental and socio-economic impacts of large
scale BTL projects are not known with certainty as there
is not an industrial plant currently on operation (Dimitriou
et al., 2018)32. The renewable nature of feedstock of BTL
plants is related with reduced GHG emissions. The devel-
opment of industries for biomass growing, collecting and
transporting close to the conversion plant (e.g. miscan-
thus) could significantly enhance the local economy
The composition of FT-SPK offers certain advantages
over conventional jet fuel. These are due to the higher
specific energy (per unit mass) of neat FT-SPK than pe-
troleum jet due to its paraffinic structure and low aro-
matic content. This therefore, reduces the weight of fuel
required to fly a specific distance, and the energy con-
sumption per unit of payload. The fuel also generates
fewer particular matter emissions due to its structure and
carbon content. (Mawhood et al., 2014)
Regulations
Targeted investments and
R&D in value chains for the
enviro-economic optimal
transportation sectors.
32 Ioanna Dimitriou, Harry Goldingay, Anthony V. Bridgwater, (2018) Techno-economic and uncertainty analysis of Biomass to Liquid (BTL) systems for
transport fuel production, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Volume 88, Pages 160-175
Jet fuels from ethanol through biochemical pathway
Table B7: Technical and economic factors, barriers and policy mechanisms for jet fuels
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Technical
Process efficiency S
The three upgrading steps (alcohol dehydration, olefin oli-
gomerization, and hydrogenation are already used in at
commercial scales and are considered mature technologies.
The restriction in process efficiency is related to the ethanol
production steps. (i.e. Relatively low conversion efficiencies
15%-25% on mass basis (or, 25%-40% on energy basis) are
reported in a few running demonstration and commercial
scale plants as described in D3.3) (Tao et al., 2017)
Technology and/or innova-
tion premiums33
Operating capac-
ity M
Technologies to convert alcohols to jet fuels are at the la-
boratory and pilot stages of implementation. No details of
operational dedicated pilot plants were identified in the lit-
erature. (Tao et al., 2017; EIT, 2014)
Regarding the ethanol production step A potential technol-
ogy barrier is obtaining a long-term stable process with bi-
ocatalysts like enzymes and yeast.
R&D grants and Innovation
funds for 2nd generation etha-
nol from forest waste.
Capital investment grants
with banding for increasing
the number of demonstration
and commercial plants to ver-
ify the stability of continuous
operation and test diversified
biomass feedstock
33 Technology or innovation premiums aim at stimulating the capacity for innovation of companies engaged in research and development.
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Co-location with
existing infra-
structures
M
As fuel conversion technologies mature, it may possible to
integrate (Alcohol to Jet fuels) ATJ processes with a wide
range of industrial processes that produce alcohol by-prod-
ucts or have the potential to do so (IATA, 2012a).
Lanzatech’s retrofit solution for steel mills is one such ex-
ample. Retrofitting existing ethanol facilities also reduces
capital cost (Staples et al., 2014).
Another approach to ATJ commercialization is the addition
of alcohol upgrading to conventional ethanol production
(e.g. the case of Byogy in Brazil)
A cellulosic ATJ biorefinery may benefit from the availability
of lignin residuals from saccharification and fermentation,
but this depends on the price of hydrogen from other
sources such as natural gas.
Premiums and reduced taxa-
tion
Capacity building
Process design:
aspects
S
The general ATJ concept is not specific to the type of alco-
hol fed to catalytic upgrading to hydrocarbons.
Other aspects attributed mainly to the ethanol production
steps as reported in D3.3.
A wide variety of technical challenges exist in the different
steps of bioethanol processing from pretreatment to the fi-
nal separation of the ethanol–water mixture. These include:
- Improvement of micro-organisms and enzymes.
- Use of C5 sugars, either for fermentation or up-
grading to valuable co-products.
- Use of lignin as value-adding energy carrier or ma-
terial feedstock.
R&D grants
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Feedstock handling and processing in cellulosic plants.
Scale-up aspects
S
One advantage with dehydration, oligomerization, and hy-
drotreating process steps is that they have been demon-
strated on a commercially relevant scale and the risk of
scale-up is expected to be reduced. However, the develop-
ment and demonstration of the integrated process on bio-
mass-derived intermediates is necessary (Byogy Renewa-
bles 2011). Particular challenges relate to the inherent diffi-
culties of managing microorganisms in an industrial fer-
mentation process, such as the rate of conversion of feed-
stocks to alcohols (which is low compared to chemical re-
fineries), and the sensitivity of microorganisms to impurities
(including by-products generated in situ) (Güell et al., 2012).
(described in D3.3)
R&D grants and Innovation
Fund
Economic
Market condi-
tions
S
The maximum use of ethanol is 10%-15% for the majority
of gasoline vehicles, which creates a blend wall that makes
it difficult to achieve further market penetration of ethanol
as a blend stock for gasoline. Therefore, upgrading ethanol
to jet fuel blend stock presents a potential pathway for de-
veloping drop-in or fungible fuels for the jet fuel market. 34
Newly developed fermentation technologies may improve
the availability of many cost-competitive alcohols or alco-
All policies mentioned below
affect market conditions
34 NREL, 2016, Review of Biojet Fuel Conversion Technologies
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
hol mixtures in the near future and may achieve more fa-
vorable economics when used to provide alcohol for ATJ
conversion.
Non-upgraded ethanol and butanol are considered to be
suitable for use in ground transportation. The safety con-
cerns and operational limitations highlighted for non-up-
graded use in aviation do not apply to road vehicles, and
both have a high octane rating which is a desirable charac-
teristic for automotive fuels. The potential to use these al-
cohols in ground applications without the need for expen-
sive upgrading processes suggests that their commercial
value may be higher as an automotive fuel than an aviation
fuel, particularly in the case of butanol (Mawhood et al.,
2014)
Capital invest-
ment and pro-
duction costs
S
The cost of alcohol production is considered to be the
greatest barrier to commercialisation of ATJ fuels at present
(Güell et al., 2012).
A study of Geleynse is reported that at an average alcohol
price, the production of alcohol feedstock for ATJ upgrad-
ing is estimated to contribute approximately 80% of the
production cost for jetfuel blendstock at the refinery. Im-
provements to alcohol production to generate low- cost al-
cohols is a key to improving the viability of ATJ.
In the catalytic upgrading process, capital expenses have a
significant impact on economics. Reduction in equipment
and facilities costs, potentially through integration with ex-
Feedstock premiums for low
cost biomass, tax in fossil fuels
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
isting industrial facilities and infrastructure, offers the larg-
est area for reduction in risk for the installation of an ATJ
conversion unit.
A supply of hydrogen is required for hydrogenation and is
an additional source of production cost. Depending on the
nature of the plant as a whole, a facility may purchase hy-
drogen or produce it on site through a number of possible
methods, including use of a biomass feedstock
Uncertainties of
production cost
S
To evaluate the overall ATJ conversion pathway and esti-
mate its commercial feasibility, the economics of the fuel
upgrading processes such as dehydration, oligomerization,
dimerization, and hydrogenation also have to be consid-
ered. Because these processes are still under development,
more research efforts are required to complete this target
goal.
Feedstock premiums towards
a common framework in EU
countries (a challenging task)
Investor risk pre-
mium
M
Moderate to high investment risk premium (e.g., lower than
the gasification- based fuels because of experience from
the operation and logistics of the 1st generation plants). It
shares, however, with all RESfuels the unstable regulatory
framework for investment and market prices.
Moreover, there is already market for ethanol as transpor-
tation fuel, so access will be easier.
Capital grants and Innovation
funds
Capacity building and training
for investors and industry on
the needs of this sector
Access to debt fi-
nancing
M
Companies with experience in 1st generation plants (either
for co-allocation with 1st generation or for greenfield 2nd
generation ethanol projects) are expected to have substan-
tial know-how in access to debt-financing. Still, larger com-
panies with a diversified business portfolio and low debt to
Public Private partnerships
and Joint Ventures
Public Private partnerships
and Joint Ventures
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
equity financing as well as public-private partnerships will
overcome this barrier more easily. The presently low inter-
est rates also help overcome this barrier.
Commercially
available process
components
N
The process includes alcohol dehydration, oligomerization,
and hydrogenation. One advantage with dehydration, oli-
gomerization, and hydrotreating process steps is that they
have been demonstrated on a commercially relevant scale
and the risk of scale-up is expected to be reduced. However,
the development and demonstration of the integrated pro-
cess on biomass-derived intermediates is necessary (NREL,
2016).
Training, capacity building,
and certification.
End-use market
development (or
engine develop-
ment)
M
Recent qualification of ATJ fuel from ethanol as an ap-
proved feedstock in ASTM standards (revised ASTM D7566
Annex A5) indicates momentum toward further develop-
ments in the near future35. Bio-jet can be used in blends up
to 50%.36
R&D grants (e.g., related to
the dedicated to ATJ-SPK pro-
duction)
Introduction of tax incentives
for using ATJ-SPK fuels
Increasing the ethanol and
the upgrading infrastructure
Comprehensive LCA studies
are essential for comparing al-
ternatives.
35 https://www.lanzatech.com/2018/04/03/jet-fuel-derived-ethanol-now-eligible-commercial-flights/ 36 IRENA, 2017, Biofuels for aviation
Factor Barrier (Se-
vere (S),
Moderate
(M),
None (N))
Explication Policy mechanisms to over-
come barriers
Enviro-economic
aspects
M
Sustainability goals in RED II do not clearly include CO2
emission targets per sector, and CO2 taxation in the future